Billets de Michelle Dawson

Billet publié sur Bluesky le 01/05/2025 11:19

Bluesky Publication avec DOI crossref Extrait cité dans le billet Question posée par Dawson dans le billet Lien intégré au billet Termes sur l’autisme

For decades, autism interventions have been advocated for, promoted as effective, & implemented before or without fair tests of their benefits vs harms to autistics--this has not helped autistics journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/... but this is now demanded as "neurodiversity affirmative"?

Voir sur Bluesky

1 réponse intégrée de Michelle Dawson

01/05/2025 11:38

Note: unfounded claims that fair tests of the benefits vs harms of interventions are bad for autistics, are too difficult to do, are too much trouble, cause dangerous delays, etc--claims promoted by this "neurodiversity affirmative" letter--underly every harmful intervention imposed on autistics

Voir la réponse sur Bluesky

Liens cités structurés

1 ressource citée

Publication avec DOI Récupéré Publication crossref

Schea Fissel Brannick (2025). Risky business: How assumptions about evidence can exclude autistic voices. Autism, 29(10), 2632-2634. SAGE Publications.

Date de publication
30/04/2025
Identifiant
10.1177/13623613251339006
Auteurs
Schea Fissel Brannick
Source
Autism
Détails
29(10), 2632-2634
Type de référence
article
Éditeur
SAGE Publications
Source de métadonnées
crossref

Résumé

Gestalt Language Development has been proposed as a theoretical foundation for neurodiversity-affirming intervention, yet its adoption remains controversial. Critics cite limited high-quality research as justification for rejecting its use, raising valid concerns about its scientific backing. However, such rejection rests on two assumptions that may lead to risky clinical decisions: (1) that research evidence should be the sole or primary driver of evidence-based practice and (2) that research-backed interventions are inherently neurodiversity-affirming. Using Gestalt Language Development as an example, this letter critiques these assumptions and illustrates how over-reliance on research alone—without integrating clinical expertise and autistic perspectives—can delay meaningful, inclusive care. I argue that centering autistic voices is essential to both neurodiversity-affirming practice and evidence-based decision-making. A more balanced model of evidence-based practice is needed—one that evaluates emerging interventions not only by their research base but also by their alignment with autistic values and their impact in clinical practice. Lay Abstract Many autistic individuals and clinicians find Gestalt Language Development to be a helpful approach for supporting autistic communication. However, some researchers argue that Gestalt Language Development should not be widely used until stronger research evidence is available. This argument introduces two risks. First, it assumes that research is the only kind of evidence that matters—overlooking the value of autistic lived experience and clinical expertise in making good intervention decisions. Second, it assumes that research-based interventions are automatically neurodiversity-affirming, even when they are developed without input from autistic people. This letter argues that excluding autistic voices from intervention decisions is risky. A more balanced approach to evidence—one that includes autistic perspectives, clinical expertise, and research—leads to inclusive, more responsive, and more effective support. While research on Gestalt Language Development is still growing, real-world experiences from autistic people and families offer valuable insight into what works and why it matters.

Auteur·ices de l’étude dans cette référence citée